>   Are you implying that if Joe Blow walked in and asked you to set up
> a list for him, you would do it?  I suspect that while the Congressman
> is being given a privilege that is not for sale, he is still being given
> it BECAUSE he is a Congressman; it is still a favor that is being done
> him because of his role and not a right that adheres to him as a private
> individual.
 
The original question, as I understood it, had to do with financial
ethics.  Yes, I would expect that a Congressman would get some preferential
treatment, just as he might if he were to call in to a radio talk-show.
However, in that latter case, do you imagine that an Office of Campaign
Ethics would be acting properly by then calling up the radio station
management and saying "You broadcast the Congresman's phone call and thereby
gave him free campaign advertising; you must therefore file as a
political contributor to his campaign and state the value of his
broadcast phone call, otherwise you will be in violation of the
campaign finance laws"?  Suppose it were a TV news program.  Should
the TV news people be required to file as political contributors every
time they broadcast an interview with an elected official?  As long as
the allocators of a public good, be it a news program, a radio call-in show,
or a Listserv, are acting in an even-handed way in the public interest
(and with no influence of financial transactions) then these actions  are
not classified as the equivalent of political contributions.
 
But if the question were broader than financial ethics, such as
"Do prominent people receive preferential treatment?", then yes, of course
they do.
 
 
But I don't think that granting a list (or a news interview) to a
Congressman is necesarily done as a *favor* to him (although it would
be very easy for him to think of it as such).  Is there enough
bandwidth and disk space to give a list to everyone who'd like to run one?
I'm guessing not.  Therefore, the Listserv coordinator who is genuinely
acting in the public interest must ask himself "What would the public benefit
more from -- having access to a list run by Joe Nobody, or having
access to a list run by Congressman Somebody?"  The latter choice will
probably be made, and not because the Congressman likes it that way and
he's more important so let's please him, but because the *public* will
have more to gain from having access to one list rather than another.
An objective Listserv coordinator will grant the set-up of a list based
on the interests of the public that he serves, regardless of whether
(and *even* *if*) some individual, prominent or not, benefits from it.
 
I could imagine a problem that would arise.  Suppose it's election time,
and suppose that supporters of candidate Joe Newguy get on the Congressman's
discussion list and start asking "Why is it that candidate Newguy has
a plan for lowering taxes and you don't?", and suppose instead of answering
the question the list-owners instead ban the Newguy supporters from the
list, then complaints come to the Listserv coordinator that the list has
been transformed into a political tool instead of being a forum for
public issues.  I could see that the Listserv coordinator would have to
seriously review what is in the public interest in that situation.
 
Well, enough of my ramblings.
 
-- Roger Burns